The E-Sylum: Volume 10, Number 38, September 23, 2007, Article 19
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON HIGH RELIEF COINAGE
Regarding the responses to his observations on high relief
coinage, Carl Honore writes: "If, as I correctly stated,
technical difficulties prevent high relief coinage being struck
by our presses, then how did the Brits do it? The 1799 pieces
with the cambered fields are absolutely perfect in production
strikes. I still maintain that this is a possible technology
if the dies are correctly manufactured in the first place. I
would still maintain that, since so many type I buffalo nickels
were struck, that cambered dies were in fact feasible. As
long as the designs were built around the center of the model,
the process should work fine.
"I know that undercut sculptured features are of course
impossible. I was using the term "high relief" as others
in the hobby had been using the term for years. What we really
mean is bas relief with scooped fields. The scooped fields or
cambered convex die surfaces are to keep the designs below the
rim of the coin.
"The 1913 type I buffalo nickel has such fields. There was no
reason to switch to flat fields and to sink the lettering below
the mound on the reverse as long as the convex fields were in
place. That is my whole point. If you observe Kuchlers 1799
penny and farthing pieces you will see how much detail remains
even in circulated condition.
"The double eagles should have been manufactured in so-called
high relief. Anything less would have resulted in much wear
of the valuable metal, thus decreasing the value by weight of
the denomination. Since gold, with the addition of copper is
a softer metal by comparison to cupro-nickel or even bronze,
the die wear would have been less extensive.
"Read back what I said about excuses in abandonment of high
relief having to do with design complication. Again, that
was a lame excuse. If the Brits could do high relief coinage
in mass production, we could too. The type I buffalo nickel
is my own case in point. Too many pieces exist with detail
even in the rock to convince me that the design wouldn't strike
up right. I owned six at one time in grades VF-XF with legends
completely readable, even on the rock.
"Here is what I think concerning Kuchler and Boulton and Watt.
To get both the detail in the coin designs and to get the cambered
fields at that time, the coins were most likely hot struck; the
blanks were heated and then fed into the press. The coining
operation would have work-hardened the final products. The draw
back would of course be that excessive heat transferred to the
dies would make them brittle over time. I believe this is why
hot striking the coins in circulation would not work. It would
be too labor intensive to heat the blanks. Any thoughts on
this one?"
Roger Burdette writes: "Per the discussion on high relief and
polished specimens, etc. readers will find considerable information
on this in "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" including
letters from Weinman and MacNeil about the problem. The National
Numismatic Collection dimes and quarters are from polished dies
and the curvature of field was obviously a problem for the
Philadelphia Mint. Half dollar pattern dies were also polished
but the NNC halves do not seem to show signs of mirrored fields.
Weinman's second version of the half and dime both had higher
relief than their predecessors or the versions used for
circulation."